IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Snowflakes [was Re: Physics - Inertia & Work]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Jan 5 03:06:25 EST 2004


As promised...

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:66YHb.5195$d4.1619 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:fwiHb.11520$IM3.8820 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > What "inertia" and "work" are, physically, and
> > why each exists:
> >
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:vSPGb.9920$IM3.9100 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > [...]
>
> > It doesn't matter so much from the traditional perspective
> > of 'physics' - 'physics' just postulates the correlated
> > stuff into 'inconsequence'. But it matters =greatly= with
> > respect to the doing of Neuroscience - because, as I
> > discussed in the post that's linked-to above, nervous
> > systems' 3-D energydynamics are =distributed= and
> > occur in a way that [via "supersystem configuration",
> > AoK, Ap5] is always undergoing 3-D-distributed
> > interconnectedness variation, yet, in 'normal' nervous
> > systems, is always as a unified whole. So, to resolve
> > the 3-D energydynamics that occur within nervous
> > systems, one has to dispense with imaginary 'particles'
> > and =See= the continuous flow of energy that's
> > distributed throughout a nervous system in always-
> > varying ways, in order to see the wellspring of unified-
> > wholeness.
> > [...]
>
> In Last week's [Tuesday, 2003-12-23] "Science Times"
> section of The =New York Times= there was an
> interesting article, "Falling Physics, When the Weather
> Outside Is Frightful", by D. Overbye, pD3.
>
> The article discusses the formation of "snowflakes", and
> should be on the =NYT= web site [I don't have the
> link].
>
> Because I saw that discussing the  symmetry that arises
> during the formation of snowflakes would be interesting to
> explore from the perspective of the stuff that I discussed
> in my previous post [linked-to above], I tried to find a copy
> of the Book, =The Snowflake, Winter's Secret Beauty", by
> K. Libbrecht, to which the article referred, but it was sold-
> out where ever I looked for it. So I ordered a copy [$20.00],
> and will pick this discussion up again shortly after my copy
> arises.
>
> 'Interpolating' from the =NYT= article, this book will probably
> be a welcome addition to anyone's Library, so I thought I'd
> give this 'preview' in order to allow folks opportunity to
> obtain their own copies of the Book, if they care to do so.
>
> What I'll be discussing [again] will be the UES-flow vs.
> 'particle' views with respect to the formation of the
> snowflakes' symmetries, and with respect to physical
> reality in general.

The book is one of the most-Beautiful that I've ever set eyes
on - a real Delight - deep in its 'Treasure'-value, and a lot of
Fun, all at once. The snowflake photographs are so Beautiful,
and so detailed, that they literally take one's breath away. I
encourage folks to purchase this Book. It's well-worth its
$20.00 cost.

The long-building "traditional" view of "snowflake" formation,
which is masterfully described in the text, is that the ice crys-
tals form via the accumulation of water [vapor] molecules via a
balanced diffusion-delimited 'competition between "facets" and
"dendrites", always reflecting the Geometry of the water molecule,
and the environmental conditions [temperature, humidity, pressure,
etc.] in which the snowflakes develop.

But, while being enthralled with my study of this book's contents
[I'm not yet finished with this study], I found the 'toe-hold' I was
looking for with respect to the UES-flow vs.'particle' views of
the formation of the snowflakes' symmetries. It is that, for each
ice crystal ["snowflake"] that has formed with a central
asymmetry, there is always(?) a corresponding peripheral
asymmetry. [One has to look closely, with a magnifying
glass, and do a lot of geometrical-cross-correlation [the photos
show snowflakes in =huge= detail], but the preceding statement
holds, strongly.]

Why does this matter?

Because such asymmetry cross-correlations cannot occur, in an
always-occurring way, via simple molecular lattice-building,
because, further, if there's asymmetry-cross-correlation, then
there must be a mechanism through which geometrical information
is communicated from one locus to another.

For those who have the book, I'll give an example from the its
photographs [there are many, always-analogous, examples
amongst the book's photos].

In the snowflake on the left page at the beginning of Chapter 4,
[un-numbered page 43], there is a 'bulbous' central asymmetry
within the central hexagon. There are matching asymmetries in
the six-'petalled' 'flower' pattern within both of these geometrical
features. The 'flower' is pushed off-center, and its two 'petals'
opposite the largest portion of the 'bulbous' distribution are
shorter than the rest of its 'petals', and the shorter one of these
is distorted in a way that 'reflects' the 'bulbous' distribution. Among
other features that vary in a way that's correlated to the 'bulbous'
asymmetry, are the 'spear-points' just peripheral to the central
hexagon. Note how their proximity to the central hexagon varies
in a way that also correlates to the 'bulbous' asymmetry.

It goes on and on like this, throughout the entire extent of this
snowflake. My favorite bits of Geometry [in this snowflake]
being the little 'dog's heads' inward and left and right of the
bottom dendrite. Now, look up at the corresponding
'symmetries' inward and left and right of the top dendrite,
and you can immediately see how different these are from
their bottom 'counterparts.

Cross-correlate all of this to the central 'bulbous' asymmetry,
and you'll see what I'm getting at.

There is an overall 'order' within, but relatively-'independent'
of,  the water-molecule-Geometry-correlated 'hexagonal' order
of the snowflake.

This '2nd order' =requires= 'communication'-at-distances
within the snowflake.

It's, presently, my view that this 2nd-order's 'communication'
occurs via, and reflects, the snowflake's internal "ephemerance"
the "freedom of energy to move" within it, a 'picture' of which
was 'frozen' into the Geometry of the snowflake as the snow-
flake developed.

The idea is that the water molecules =share= their local UES
which 'sustains' the SSW<->UES compression<->expansion
harmonics that comprise the snowflakes, and this UES-sharing
cause the water molecules to orient themselves so that this
UWS-sharing will be optimized throughout the snowflake
=and= the environment through which the developing snowflake
moves.

It's this UES-sharing that 'communicates' acriss the snowflake
and results in the observable asymmetry 'reflections'.

There's nothing "too-crazy" to accept in this position. =Of course=
molecular 'forces' extend beyond the material extents of mol-
ecules. =Of course=.

Where it gets a bit 'difficult' is that, in this UES-'sustinence'-
sharing view, the molecular 'forces' are 'just' the UES-flow
as I've been discussing it all along, which is =continuous=, and
'adds' in algebraic-accord with this continuity [algebraic-
infinitessimals].

That is, in the view I'm discussing there are no discrete
values for 'binding forces' - no 'electron exchange', etc.
All there is is the continuity of the UES-flow - which is
why the snowflake's supposed "symmetries" are seen to
be completely asymmetrical when they are carefully cross-
correlated.

[In this interplay between symmetry and asymmetry, snow-
flakes literally do a form of "Information Calculus", and
their celebrated uniqeness derives in the fact that they do :-]

This last stuff happens be-cause, fundamentally, the UES
flows with respect to =universal= WDB2T, not only in
accord with the local SSW<->UES harmonics composition
of the snowflake.

Energy flows in a way that maximizes its "ephemerance"
[its "freedom to move"], and, in so doing, renders snow-
flakes' supposed "symmetry" everywhere asymmetrical,
to the degree of the snowflake's local ephemerance [which
approaches 'zero' as 'perfect symmetry' is approached [to
get Perfect-Symmetry energy's freedom to move - it's
"ephemerance" - =must= be Completely-restricted [which
Necessitates "Freezing" the entire Universe]]].

The advantage of this approach is that it explains geometrical
features of snowflakes [and everything else within physical
reality, BTW] that are not explainable in terms of 'fixed-
force' molecular Geometry.

The 'Hard' thing about it is that it rewrites all of Physics.

I took copious notes while reading the book, and will continue
this discussion if anyone's interested, but I want to clarify one
more thing before breaking-off tonight.

The "snow crystal morphology" diagram on page 45 of the
book [originally done by U. Nakaya] is 'just' a Temperature +
Humidity + Pressure version of the black body power spectrum,
and the morphology variations conform to my prior discussion
[which I re-posted [most of it] in the "Neural 4-space" thread
the other night].

No "mystery".

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net